Dominique Strauss-Kahn: IMF head 'hired prostitutes from Manhattan madam'

[brooklynite]

Source: The Telegraph

Kristin Davis said she provided young women for the IMF chief in 2006, as he ran for the French Socialists' presidential nomination, and that one complained about his "aggressive" behaviour.

"He was a client of my agency," she told The Daily Telegraph. "When men abuse women I'm no longer going to protect their identities".

...snip...

Miss Davis, 35, who claims to have a long list of celebrity clients, said Mr Strauss-Kahn called her directly on her mobile phone and paid $1,200 cash for two-hour sessions in hotel rooms.

"He wanted an 'All-American girl', with a fresh face, from the mid-West," she said. "A girl in January 2006 complained he was rough and angry, and said she didn't want to see him again".

Read more: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/dominique-strauss-kahn/8522586/Dominique-Strauss-Kahn-IMF-head-hired-prostitutes-from-Manhattan-madam.html

---

Maybe he got a professional referral...

[bemildred]

1. Pathetic. nt

[blackdem76]

24. Sure is! n/t

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[The Backlash Cometh]

3. Who is Kristen Davis and why is she talking so publicly about her

Madam services?

On edit: Oh. Never mind. She IS a madam.

[PassingFair]

14. Same despicable person who was used to help take down Spitzer.

NO WAY is this a coincidence.

I think these were both political set-ups, not that the
men weren't guilty of being shit-heels.

Games are being played here, and it's not all
between the sheets.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/dominique-strauss-kahn/8522582/Kristin-Davis-Manhattan-Madam-who-supplied-Dominique-Strauss-Kahn-with-escorts.html

[KoKo]

51. Spitzer did what he was accused of, though. So, how can you blame her?

She provided a "service" and Spitzer took her up on it. The maid at the French Hotel was doing her job (or according to some folks...she was a plant for a "Honey Pot Sting" and she has $500,000 in Swiss Bank Account).

Whether she was an innocent maid accosted with sexual assault or a "honey pot sting" operator for others...DSK had a problem and got caught.

We are blaming the messenger and not the message the messenger is conveying about their sense of morals and behavior to others.

[PassingFair]

58. Her "service" is human trafficking.

And she procured women for a man who was
KNOWN for abusing them.

Despicable.

[sufrommich]

88. "she has $500,000 in Swiss Bank Account"

Where did you hear that?

[Modern_Matthew]

93. More power to her. I hope she releases her list of all high-profile clients.

I'm not anti-prostitution... I'm just pro-embarrassment of high profile people.

[Prometheus Bound]

4. Everything I read about this guy makes me sick.

Even his supposed progressive attitude within the IMF. I read a few of his speeches and discussions. Calling the Greeks names. Mealy mouthed BS about we must think about the unemployed first while forcing massive cutbacks. He's just a phoney. Through and through. And an asshole!

[JackRiddler]

45. Can you link to speeches in which he calls the Greeks names?

I'd like some ammo. Thanks.

[WatsonT]

5. Must be a conspiracy

no other logical explanation for why a rich power man would want to have sex with a pretty woman.

[Ian David]

6. Client Number Eight? n/t

[jberryhill]

7. +1 for the Tom Petty reference

[aquart]

8. But hiring expensive hookers is what I expected. Not the other.

Men with disposable income buy presents for their dicks. That's straightforward commerce.

The unpaid maid is a whole other story. Not actually related. Almost a refutation. He knew how to get what he wanted. He had the number. He could have called. With everything he had at stake, he didn't.

Sorry, it's still ODD.

[Blasphemer]

9. I agree although, in this case, it might actually be related

Considering that the prostitutes complained about his rough behaviour, it's not inconceivable that he could have hired women and abused them as well. Clearly this man was rich and powerful enough to get sex anytime he wanted but he wanted more than just sex - violence is what he was after.

[sufrommich]

10. Are you under the illusion that rape involves critical

thinking skills.

[aquart]

11. Illusion?

I see a man who thinks he has a shot at being president of France. So, yes, I do expect critical thinking to be part of his make up. Suddenly, it's all gone? What was it? A hormone surge?

You seem to take rape for granted. I don't. I believe that if a man is incapable of taking responsibility for his actions, he should not be allowed to vote or own property or go out without a leash.

Is it your opinion that men are incapable of taking responsibility for their actions?

ANOTHER THING: People in power are not usually the ones committing power crimes on women. The perversion in men of power is diaper-wearing, visiting a dominatrix who beats them and tells them how bad they are, cleaning their master's toilet.

So again, in a man of power and position I FIND THIS CRIME ODD. I am not saying I disbelieve it. I'm saying there's more than one way this could have occurred and I would like to understand what did happen.

Do you assume you know what happened?

[bemildred]

12. Well said.

He's an old fart too, not some hormone drenched teenager.

[KittyWampus]

116. Well said? You really think men don't use their positions of power to abuse women?

Really?

And your comment "He's an old fart too"... like age has something to do with men abusing women. Ever hear of Viagra?

[bemildred]

117. No, I think what he did is stupid, and I think that deserves notice, explanation.

Not every man in a position of power does such stupid things. That's just a stereotype, a stupid stereotype. Why is a guy who is a bigshot with the IMF, with so much to lose, doing such stupid things? Why is such a stupid person a bigshot with the IMF? It ain't just because he has a penis. I have a penis, and I would never even consider doing such things.

[Bragi]

13. Agreed, it is very odd

At first I couldn't believe it actually happened as reported because it made no sense.

Why would a man suddenly turn into a violent sexual predator at age 62, and then commit his violence in a location where he was certain to be identified and apprehended?

However, as what seem to be "facts" have emerged, it's become clear that this guy has a long history of sexual abuse, so maybe this latest attack was just an escalation of an existing pattern of behavior.

The oddity now is how he got away with it for so long. I know people keep saying and probably want to believe that rich people can get away with anything, but actually, they can't.

But this guy did. So how'd that happen?

From a public interest standpoint, that seems to me to be the most important question arising from this event.

[rayofreason]

29. "..suddenly turn into a violent sexual predator..."??

Apparently it was not so sudden, if the story of him getting rough with one of the girls is to be believed.

It could be that the violence mixed with the the sex was a growing fascination and that this time he went over the edge.

[brooklynite]

16. I wouldn't make this argument.....

I see a man who thinks he has a shot at being president of France. So, yes, I do expect critical thinking to be part of his make up.

I think many of us would argue that a fair number of the people who think they have a shot at being President of the United States don't have critical thinking skills...

[JackRiddler]

46. Among men "of power and position" I expect this crime to be frequent and rarely reported.

You write: "People in power are not usually the ones committing power crimes on women."

This is just a lie, and evinces little more than your prejudice against the lower classes. Rape is prevalent in all classes. Men of power are not usually the ones being caught, is all.


.

[joshcryer]

59. It's naturally quite odd, he gave up the French presidency over it.

But being odd does not mean it didn't happen.

[sufrommich]

91. What a load of bullshit. Please show me where I said "men"

are incapible of taking responsibility of their actions?

"People in power are not usually the ones committing power crimes on women. " Says who?

[KittyWampus]

115. No, what you saw was a man used to privilege and deference and getting away with abuse.

And this crap about "People in power are not usually the ones committing power crimes on women".

Right, bosses NEVER use their position to force women to have sex with them. :sarcasm: Maybe you forget the name of Ensign.

Where did you come up with such drivel?

I should start a thread just to dissect that idiocy.

And what's even more sad, other DU'ers think you have a point.

[starroute]

17. There's a reason feminists used to talk about "testosterone poisoning"

The "what was he thinking?" factor seems to be particularly strong in powerful men.

[txlibdem]

96. To be fair... what do you say in defense of Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachmann???

Do they have "estrogen poisoning" or are they just batshit crazy???

Absolute power corrupts. Absolutely. Man, woman, it doesn't matter one bit.

[sfwriter]

18. +1 eom

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[athena]

19. That is an incredibly convoluted and desperate argument.

It's implausible precisely because it is "fine-tuned", as we would say in physics. Some people are so desperate to have this guy be innocent that they are imagining scenarios that could only happen on CSI. All the facts suggest that DSK did indeed rape the maid, thinking he would get away with it. He probably did get away with similar behavior in the past -- in France, of course.

In any case, if there were such an unlikely mix-up, DSK could easily prove it. The phone records could be found, and whoever provided the prostitute could confirm the claim.

Finally, there is a huge difference between someone faking resistance to sexual advances, and someone really resisting them. Even if this convoluted theory of mistaken identity were correct, the guy would still be a rapist in my book. A decent person -- i.e., a person who cares about the wishes of the woman -- would have quickly realized that that the woman he was trying to have sex with really didn't want to go along with it.

[reorg]

23. I don't say this is how it went down but find it no less plausible

than any other theory people might have right now.

There are any number of possible variations, of course, somebody could have seen to it that a mix-up occurs, for instance.

I don't know what can and what cannot be proven. The "facts" don't suggest much of anything.

Of course, there is a difference between faking resistance and actually resisting, but as I said: once he noticed it, it may have been too late (IF it was a mix-up).

In any case, I find it much more likely that a guy like that routinely orders prostitutes to his hotel room than that he would try and rape a hotel maid on the spur of the moment, getting himself into an inescapable trap. Even people like him may be capable of doing stupid things, but I'm not buying THAT stupid. There must have been SOME kind of misunderstanding.

[athena]

26. Or, more simply, he thought he would get away with it.

After all, this was a black immigrant maid working for minimum wage.

Let's consider the two scenarios:

Scenario 1: The maid is telling the truth and DSK is lying. The maid walked into the room, surprising DSK who had just gotten out of the shower. Annoyed at being seen naked, DSK decided to put the maid in her place by forcing her to perform oral sex on him. After all, how likely was it that anyone would believe a black immigrant over the chief of the IMF? Moreover, the maid would not want to risk losing her job and her immigrant status.

Scenario 2: The maid is lying. DSK had asked for a prostitute dressed like a maid, and had specified that she should pretend to resist his advances. For some reason, he wanted the prostitute to arrive just before he was to leave for lunch with his daughter. The prostitute, for some reason, never showed up. What's more, there is no proof that there was a prostitute. Instead, a maid showed up. DSK assumed that this was the prostitute, did not ask questions, and was too stupid to realize that the maid was dressed like a maid, not a prostitute's version of a maid (e.g., comfortable low heels instead of stilettos, no makeup, tired appearance). He was also too stupid to realize that the maid was resisting more than the prostitute was supposed to. He also didn't think twice about the cart propping the door open. He simply pushed the cart away, locked the door, and dragged the maid around the suite, trying first to have sex with her, and then forcing her to perform oral sex on him. After all was done, he realized she was a real maid, was extremely apologetic. But the maid, being a Muslim prude from West Africa, ran away and reported that she had been raped. Of course, instead of telling the truth about the mix-up, DSK first claimed that he was not even in the room when the maid came in, and then claimed that the maid agreed to have sex with him.

It is only if you are desperate to have DSK be innocent that scenario 2 can appear more likely than scenario 1. Your only argument against scenario 1 is that DSK should have known he would get into trouble. Remember that DSK has made poor decisions in the past (vis a vis Piroska Nagy). The fact is, powerful people have been making stupid mistakes for millenia. The ancient Greeks wrote tragedies about it. It's called "hubris" and is part of the human condition.

[Yo_Mama]

35. Uh-huh

You are willing to believe this. A violent attack is a violent attack, even on a prostitute. It is not ever a misunderstanding. You assume he is guilty but didn't really mean to do it? What kind of nonsense is that?

People are very stupid about their sex lives. And a person with that type of kink who apparently has jumped women before is both driven by such a desire and fed by getting away with it.

The only possible plausible explanation is that the maid is lying, but there will be hard evidence to point one way or another.

What are you really doing, trying out defense scenarios? Going in front of a jury with this is going to get him 20 years in the slammer, and he'll do 12. If it happened, he better plead. Believe me, if he was expecting a prostitute he will offer proof in his defense. This line of BS will not stand.

It is also disgusting.

[Yo_Mama]

36. You know Tristine Banon has a lawyer and says she is going to press charges

There's a reference in a book already published to him attacking a maid in Mexico in a similar manner.

This was an open secret in France. OPEN. It's just that the US is a very different society. In France, you have to take a charge to a magistrate. The magistrate will investigate and decide whether the charge is plausible, then direct the police. It is an entirely different justice system.

It is possible that the maid is lying, but if you go around getting physical with women, sooner or later it will catch up with you.

There are two separate pre-existing accounts - Tristine Banon's and the story in the book - about the same sort of behavior.

[Yo_Mama]

37. 2010 book reports DSK assault on maid in Mexican hotel, 2007 Banon attack description

http://www.hispanicallyspeakingnews.com/notitas-de-noticias/details/latin-american-press-denounces-past-sex-attack-on-latina-by-strauss-ka/7732/

It's a very big conspiracy, it started years ago with Banon, then the book, now this three-year hotel employee just lined up and waiting to entrap him.

Look - tons of people knew in France.

2007 French show transcript - Thierry Ardisson, who has since said that he knows of over ten women this guy jumped.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/dominique-strauss-kahn/8517196/Dominique-Strauss-Kahn-like-a-rutting-chimpanzee-says-alleged-victim.html

Banon named him after the show was aired.

And then, he gently closed the door. I put down the tape recorder immediately to record. He wanted me to hold his hand while he answered, because he told me: "I won't be able to if you don't hold my hand". And after that, from my hand, he went to my arm, and then a bit higher. So I stopped right away. When I arrived I was wearing a black turtleneck ...

TA: When you left, you only had a thong!

TB: ... it may excite guys to see a black turtleneck, but come on. And after that, things ended very, very badly, because we ended up fighting.

TA: Yeah, they had a fight.

TB: It ended very, very violently because I told him clearly... Truly, we did fight. We didn't merely slap each other, we gave - well I gave - kicks, and he undid my bra, he tried to undo my jeans.

TA: Ah, I just love that.

Guest: I mean, you see, this is foolish. If he can do that, he can do anything.

TB: When finally I left, he sent me a text message straight away saying: "So, are you afraid of me?" in a provocative tone. I had talked to him, while we were fighting. I had told him about the ... I had said "rape" rape to frighten him, but it didn't frighten him more than that. It just goes to show you that, apparently, he was used to it. After that, he was continually sending me text messages saying < ...>

Guest: Did you go to court?

TB: No, but I went as far as drawing up a case. I went and saw a top lawyer who already had an impressive file about him, but I didn't dare go through with it. I didn't want to be, until the end of my days, the girl that had had a problem with a politician.

[joshcryer]

57. It's certainly less plausible than the evidence we have available. We know the defense is not...

...saying that. The defense is saying that if there was sexual contact she consented. Why don't you look at all of the evidence (including the behavior of the defense) as a whole rather than grasping at straws?

[LisaL]

39. I don't think the defense "I only attacked this woman because

I mistaken her for a hooker" would legally work in a first place.

[joshcryer]

56. Yeah, the defense isn't going that route anyway.

The defense is saying no force was used, so they're going to go with the seduction route and will likely try to pin it on her financial situation (either in her immediate family or with family in West Africa). They'll say she wanted his money so faked wanting to be with him so she could get a payout (the civil suit after the matter will be in the millions). There's really no other defense to be had because she's not likely to be found out to be a slutty whore (and such brutal character assassinations will not work as they do in so many other cases).

If the defense had evidence of a conspiracy to trap him then they'd be pulling it already, because the media would eat that the fuck up and the public at large would find that just utterly scandalous and it'd be a wonderful sideshow.

[jberryhill]

100. Normally, this would be called a "mistake of fact" defense

However, mistake of fact in this instance is only relevant to the attempted rape charges and not to the sexual assault charges

In fact, to use a mistake of fact defense on the attempt, he would have to admit all relevant criteria of the assault charges.

I haven't checked the cumulative sentencing weight to each of the charges. It would only be worthwhile if the potential sentence for the attempt charges is significantly large.

[joshcryer]

101. Since the sentence would be simultaneous it wouldn't affect the outcome, as far as I can tell.

Highly unlikely they'll argue this. The plea deal will be interesting though.

[athena]

20. One more thing.

Completely embarassed he may have apologised, offered money, whatever - probably only to make it worse. Some of these muslims from West Africa can be pretty uptight and may be totally unaware of the sexual mores in sin city.

That is an incredibly offensive statement. You think that not wanting to perform oral sex on someone 30 years older that you have never met before is being "uptight"? Even non-Muslims, or people not from West Africa might have a problem with that.

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[athena]

22. You are assuming a lot of things there.

You're assuming that the maid is lying about having been raped. You're assuming that DSK politely asked the maid to perform oral sex on him but did not physically force her to do so. The NYPD is not made up of idiots. If there had not been physical evidence indicating sexual assault, DSK would not have been dragged off his airplane. So far, all indications are that the physical evidence corroborates the maid's version of the events.

Honestly, I don't get why French people are so desperate to have this guy be innocent. Why can't they say, simply, "If DSK did indeed sexually assault the maid, we cannot condone his behavior. He does not represent French people in any way. Sexual assault is as serious a crime in France as it is in the U.S." Why do they have to argue, "Oh, no, DSK cannot possibly have done anything wrong! The maid must be lying! The maid must have been bribed! The maid must have wanted to have violent sex with him! The maid must be a prude! This can only be a major international conspiracy! How violent and brutal to publish pictures of poor DSK in handcuffs!" The French may not realize it, but they are really embarrassing themselves here.

[reorg]

25. not at all

1. she didn't claim she was raped
2. I don't assume he asked politely
3. "physical force" is open to interpretation and it's the job of the police and prosecution to assume the worst, I'm not the police
4. You have no idea what it takes for the police to "drag" someone off an airplane (police to DA "got a French guy here name of Strauss-Kahn, should we bring him in or allow him to leave the country?" - DA to police "Wait, Strauss-Kahn, hm, think I heard that name before, gotta call the mayor" ... ... ... "YEAH, get him, subito, no means spared, perp walk, the works".)

I can't speak for "the French people", but I think the speculation I described is just as plausible as any other theory at this point. In case you didn't notice, it doesn't include the claim that the maid lied.

[alcibiades_mystery]

31. I like the idea of Bloomberg speaking Italian at that moment

:rofl:

[CTyankee]

40. Yeah, you'd think he woulda said "toute suite" instead!

[Prometheus Bound]

49. He is charged with forcible anal and oral sex.

[reorg]

28. I tried to explain

why you misunderstood what I was saying, but apparently it is still wrong to talk about oral sex these days. Sorry, didn't realize that.

[w4rma]

27. That is exactly what I think probably happened, also, reorg. It fits completely. (nt)

[Yo_Mama]

30. You know, even prostitutes can be raped

Also, apologizing doesn't undo rape. I'm really shocked at your statements. Not wanting to engage in sex with someone you don't know is not being "uptight", and in fact, the sexual mores in sin city do not include forcible sexual assault, or he would not be looking at 15 years in the can.

The maid may not be telling the truth, but according to the charges, there will be enough evidence to tell if she is lying.

Coming up with some wacky scenario like this doesn't excuse the man. Would it excuse anyone? Is "I thought you were a whore so I raped you" a legal defense?

Reading these threads on DU has made me believe that there is great misogyny here.

[reorg]

32. are you deliberately misreading my post?

I stated several times that in this scenario (which I did not invent, it is speculation from a French blog reported about in the news) nobody assumes the maid is lying, fer chrissake. How often do I have to repeat it?

Second, it is not about "forced sex" - the scenario assumes a mix-up, that the maid was mistaken for a hooker who would have had agreed beforehand to everything that was taking place. Naturally, if you get mixed up in something like that and especially if you don't want anything to do with that kind of thing it has a devastating effect! Nobody is denying it, on the contrary, the very fact that the maid must have been totally shocked explains why there was no way this thing wouldn't end up with a report to the police. Even if we assume the scenario is true and even if we assume there was no intention to violate anybody's private space whatsoever.

Nobody is trying "to excuse the man", this scenario is trying to offer a plausible explanation. Because, clearly, what has been reported to date doesn't make much sense to quite a few people.

[Yo_Mama]

34. Link the blog - I read French

If you will reread your post, it doesn't appear that you are quoting. If you are going to quote such things, then don't refer to them as plausible. I think you are being very offensive.

The scenario does not offer a plausible explanation. The only plausible explanation is that the maid is not telling the truth, and I think physical evidence will sort that out one way or another. We do not know what happened.

First, it is not even remotely humane to link "uptight" to not accepting an apology for rape. Second, this explanation presumes that DSK is a pervert who gets off on raping people so has hired a prostitute to engage in a simulated attack/rape. The charges include an attempt at anal entry. If the French really believe there are prostitutes out there who are willing to engage in anal sex without lube and without a condom, and that DSK is dumb or reckless enough to HAVE violent anal sex without a condom with such a prostitute, and that he is too stupid to tell the difference between a maid and a prostitute, then they should be quite frightened at having even considered him for president.

Also, under this "plausible" theory then his wife had better get herself tested for HIV pronto and every six months for a couple of years.

Is a "plausible" explanation really that this guy is a reckless, extremely perverted person who doesn't care if he hurts a prostitute badly, doesn't care about his own health and the health of his other sexual partners, including his wife, and can't tell a prostitute from a hotel maid?

Cut me a break. I have read some pretty offensive French commentary about this, but nothing quite as bad as you claim to be describing.

[athena]

42. A few comments.

I have seen the mix-up scenario posted a few times on the NYT comments pages, though it was not accompanied with comments about West-African Muslims being "uptight". Nor was there any speculation about how DSK probably apologized and how the maid would probably have been more understanding if she had been less "uptight". In any case, as you and I have both pointed out, the mix-up scenario is not plausible. Anybody who has seen a hotel maid would realize that it is impossible for an adult to mistake a real maid for a prostitute's sexualized approximation of a maid.

The maid's version of events, on the other hand, is quite plausible. At first, it seems a bit surreal, but once you find out about DSK's background, it all starts to make sense. DSK was well-known in France as a womanizer, one so pushy that his advances bordered on harrassment <1>. When he was named chief of the IMF, he was warned by his colleagues that he had to be careful in the U.S., where sexual harrassment is taken more seriously than in France <1>. DSK himself admitted that one of the three most important obstacles to his presidential candidacy was "les femmes" <2>. A woman named Tristane Banon -- one of his daughter's friends -- has recently come forward and stated that he tried to rape her in 2002 <3>. In 2008, at the IMF, he had an affair with one of his subordinates, Piroska Nagy -- the IMF found that he had made a "serious error of judgment", though they did not feel he had abused his position. Nagy, on the other hand, suggested that she had been put in a situation where she had little choice but to accept his advances <4>. Now, we find out that he hired prostitutes in NYC who complained that he was "rough and angry". Various editorials and op-ed pieces in French newspapers have pretty much admitted that if the incident with the maid had happened in France, it would never have reached the media <5,6>. It is therefore not a stretch to speculate that this guy had a huge sense of entitlement and could not imagine that he would get in trouble for sexually assaulting a black immigrant hotel maid in NYC.

Everything suggests that events happened exactly as the maid described them. The police likely recovered a ton of physical evidence to corroborate her claims. I only hope that he will be convicted and suffer the consequences of attacking someone much weaker and less powerful.

References:
<1> http://www.leparisien.fr/dsk-la-chute/dsk-seducteur-jusqu-a-l-inconscience-16-05-2011-1451991.php
<2> http://m.sfr.fr/home/u/news/c/filinfo/s/politique/a/urn:pwpid:546977/article-news.html
<3> http://www.liberation.fr/politiques/01012337844-tristane-banon-l-accusation-francaise
<4> http://www.lefigaro.fr/international/2009/02/17/01003-20090217ARTFIG00530-liaison-au-fmi-la-lettre-qui-met-en-cause-dsk-.php
<5> http://www.liberation.fr/politiques/01012337647-primaire
<6> http://www.lefigaro.fr/international/2008/10/18/01003-20081018ARTFIG00622-en-france-une-telle-affaire-n-aurait-jamais-vu-le-jour-.php

[Yo_Mama]

43. Thanks for the links!

Yes, the French media is now twisting themselves into knots, sort of apologizing and justifying not printing what was already said openly. It really was an open secret in France that this guy jumped women.

And then there's the insider book, published last year, which reports an attack on a maid in Mexico.

I find this woman's story plausible, but more to the point, the police are investigating. An attack of this nature leaves traces.

However, if one is seeking "plausibility", one can always claim that she is lying - that is until DSK pleads, which he probably will. But one cannot claim that he just mistook this lady for a hired sexual companion. That is not plausible.

And although it is true that the French originally dismissed this as puritanical American overreaction, when they found out the real charges, they changed course. Only misogynists could dismiss the allegations as not being serious or attempt to explain them away.

[reorg]

44. Liberation

http://www.liberation.fr/politiques/01012337709-femme-chambre-version-avocat-fetichiste-complot

final paragraph, citing Le Parisien

http://www.leparisien.fr/dsk-la-chute/affaire-dsk-derapage-ou-complot-les-internautes-balancent-15-05-2011-1450926.php

and the blog site is apparently Mixbeat

[Yo_Mama]

48. These links at least exonerate the French

But they contain nothing about an uptight Muslim maid, etc, so they don't make you look very good.

The speculation at the end of Le Parisien is described very briefly. A rough translation of the entire discussion:

"Finally, there are those who, from a popular French site, Mixbeat, relying on the tendency of the political man for 5-7 pranks at fine hotels, cite a note from 'Carl of Canada' of February, 16, 2009 <<A rumor speaks of paid sexual acts with the housemaids - you know, those who come to turn down the bed to ready the room for the night. >> In this scenario, the maid is not really a maid. Conspiracy theorists see the proof in that anyone that anyone would be so ready to chase after an irresistible young woman in a hotel suite. DSK would have been prepared to think it was a game."

There is some funny stuff in the beginning of this article:

"... et que, dans une Amérique très pudibonde, les policiers n'ont pas attendu d'avoir un feu vert politique pour intercepter cet homme marié."

Literally:
"...and that, in a very prudish America, the police did not wait for the political green light to intercept the married man."

It seems as if you came up with the most offensive stuff on your own.

My translation of the important part isn't very good, so here is the original paragraph:
"Il y a enfin ceux qui, partant d'un site français très consulté, Mixbeat, relaient le penchant de l'homme politique pour des 5 à 7 polissons dans de beaux hôtels, évoqué dans un billet de «Carl du Canada» le 16 février 2009. «Une rumeur parle d'actes sexuels rémunérés avec des femmes de ménage. Vous savez : celles qui viennent défaire le lit pour préparer la chambre pour la nuit». Dans ce scénario, la femme de ménage n'est pas une vraie femme de ménage. Et les théoriciens d'un complot d'y voir la preuve que n'importe qui de bien organisé pouvait donc précipiter dans la suite une jeune femme irrésistible. DSK lui-même aurait pu penser qu'il s'agissait d'un jeu... "

[athena]

47. It's great to discuss this with a reasonable person.

I had not heard about the attack on the maid in Mexico. Thanks for mentioning it.

I am currently in Switzerland, and following this story in the French media has been driving me crazy. The French elite seem not to realize how badly they are embarrassing themselves. A few editorials have questioned whether the French media enabled DSK with their policy of respecting the privacy of politicians and artists, but I would not say that most of the reporters and commentators have pondered the matter in a sincere way. On Radio France Info this morning, the coverage seemed extremely biased. First, they portrayed the bail decision as a major victory for DSK. Next, they interviewed a politician who insisted that DSK could not have committed rape and then dismissed Tristane Banon's mother's statements about Parti Socialiste memebers being aware of the rape as not having to do with "facts" because Tristane Banon did not press charges. (Apparently, rape becomes real only when the victim presses charges and the accused is found guilty.) They then interviewed one of the maid's neighbors, who said he did not know her well but that she was reserved and hard-working. Although he clearly meant that she is someone who keeps to herself and does not cause trouble, the tone of the translation suggested that there was something strange about someone living in a building for six months and not being intimately known by everyone in the building. They also interviewed someone from the NYC Guinean community, who said that the maid is a good Muslim, that her family members are also reserved people, and that the person who claimed to be her brother earlier this week is not really her brother. He clearly meant that reporters should not believe everything they hear, but the French translator managed to imply that it's somehow the maid's fault that someone falsely claimed to be her brother. Afterwards, they interviewed French-speaking lawyers in NY, with questions pushing the idea that the US justice system discriminates against famous people and/or poor people (never mind the inconsistency). They also interviewed an NPR correspondent in Paris, with questions inviting her to agree that the media in the U.S. blows things out of proportion. With the exception of the politician, the people interviewed were reasonable, but the bias in the interviewer's questions was quite disturbing.

On top of their pro-DSK bias, the French media are still having a hard time distinguishing rape from seduction. Even when they manage to do so, they seem to think that it is a good thing for a powerful man to be a womanizer ("un séducteur"). They don't seem bothered that the power differential between the seducer and his subordinates can convince the latter to "consent" to sex unwillingly.

Personally, I don't think it is all that plausible that the maid is lying. If she were lying, the Special Victims squad would likely have figured it out. As this article, which you may have seen, explains, these people are highly trained and very experienced with cases of sexual assault. Of course, there may be a small chance that the maid managed to fool them all. We will find out eventually. I do agree, however, that even this is a lot more plausible than the idea that DSK mistook the maid for a prostitute.

[Yo_Mama]

52. It is clear that the French still believe in droit de seigneur

And that the cultural bias in France makes it very difficult for a woman to prosecute a charge of rape against such a man.

They are in a defensive ring about this issue. Some of them are embarrassed, and they seem to have pissed off some female politicians. But they do not take such attacks seriously, and a great deal of the speculation about a conspiracy theory really turns around the question "Why did the police arrest DSK at all?"

When you strip away all the rhetoric it is an ugly situation.

[joshcryer]

55. Nah, she didn't take the money and ran because she's uptight.

Read carefully. Any non-uptight woman would've stood around with her forceful rapist and expected to be paid!

[girl gone mad]

33. That's seriously stupid speculation.

I don't believe French people could be this dumb.

[joshcryer]

54. I have to ashamedly admit that part of me had that initial reaction.

I retrospect I was being stupid and it is wholly pathetic to even go that route.

[LisaL]

38. Oh you have got to be kidding me. Uptight?

[Bunny]

41. WHAT THE FUCK?????

"Completely embarassed he may have apologised, offered money, whatever - probably only to make it worse. Some of these muslims from West Africa can be pretty uptight and may be totally unaware of the sexual mores in sin city."

Are you fucking kidding me? That is the most incredibly offensive bullshit that I've ever read in 10 years here at DU. You're the grand prize winner - take a fucking bow. :puke:

[Psephos]

50. I can't wait to read your defense of pedophile priests. n/t

[joshcryer]

53. Even if true that doesn't change anything.

And for it to have went as far as it did the "prostitute" would've had to have been ordered to "pretend not to want to have sex" meaning he intended to rape someone regardless.

Muslims in West Africa as uptight. I love the racism.

[Prometheus Bound]

60. OK, this may be the strangest statement I have ever read on DU.

Some of these muslims from West Africa can be pretty uptight and may be totally unaware of the sexual mores in sin city.

I don't know New York very well, but I do know that forcible anal and oral sex is not considered socially accepted sexual behavior.

Perhaps you meant something else?

[reorg]

62. Hm, not sure what you mean

I may be not up-to-date with the allegations currently swirling around, the latest I read was that

"Deponent states that deponent is informed by an individual known to the District Attorney's office that defendant 1) shut the door to the above location and prevented informant from leaving the above location; 2) grabbed informant's breasts without consent; 3) attempted to pull down informant's pantyhose and forcibly grabbed informant's vaginal area; 4) forcibly made contact with his penis and informant's mouth twice; and 5) was able to accomplish the above acts by using actual physical force."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/may/16/dominique-strauss-kahn-allegations-details

Doesn't seem to cover what you describe, or even make it possible.


Be that as it may, what is "socially accepted behavior" obviously depends on the circles you move in, don't you think? There may be some differences between what is acceptable in a sex club of a special kind (uhm, yes they do exist in NYC) or if you are on a date with a hooker (according to "Client No 9", which I just watched, a thriving business) and what certain religious communities might approve of.

[Prometheus Bound]

64. As your link says "engaged in oral sexual conduct and anal sexual conduct...by forcible compulsion."

i.e. anal and oral rape

[reorg]

65. I have no idea what that means

- "anal conduct" - with the pantyhose on? So he grabbed her and rubbed his naked body against the accuser?

Rape is nowhere to be found in the list of allegations, they assume "attempted rape". I'll wait and see what the trial brings.

The whole incident could have been very brief, a few minutes at most. I don't see anything that rules out the scenario described.

[joshcryer]

66. I highly doubt there will be a trial. He'll plead guilty in a few months.

He'd rather take the 5 year minimum and serve 2.5 years possibly even with a stupid ass arrangement to be jailed at home as opposed to the 15 years he'd get in hard prison if he took it to trial.

[Prometheus Bound]

67. They call it sexual abuse in the charges.

I consider insertion of a man's penis in a woman's anus against her will to be rape, but apparently only vaginal insertion is called rape in New York.

You'd have to ask an expert to know more. I sure don't.

[reorg]

69. perhaps you are overinterpreting?

I don't know, not having been there, but "making contact twice" is not necessarily the same as "inserting", I think.

Sexual abuse is any form of unwanted body contact with a sexual motive or implication. But I think it is necessary to prove intent.

[joshcryer]

70. The mouth is an organ, it is composed of lips, tongue, teeth, etc.

Contact with mouth means insertion.

[athena]

73. In fact ...

as you can see in my previous message, where I linked the New York State law on this, insertion is only required for a charge of rape. Contact is all that is required for oral/anal sexual conduct.

[reorg]

76. exactly

"contact" is alleged, not "insertion", as I said.

[athena]

77. Contact is all that is required. (n/t)

[reorg]

80. and yet

people go on and on about how he "raped her anally and orally" as if they had been present and knew it for a fact.

[athena]

82. Forcible oral/anal contact are the same level of felony as forcible rape in NYC.

Forcible oral/anal contact is not less serious than forcible rape, as you imply.

[joshcryer]

83. Thanks athena.

[reorg]

84. which poses the question

why people go on and on about how he "raped her anally and orally" as if they had been present and knew it for a fact.

on edit: However, I just checked and one is "a class B felony" whereas the other is "a class E felony" - whatever that means.
on second edit: oops, may have misread, these rape laws in the US are incredibly complicated ... I guess you are correct and one item in the list of allegations is in the same "class" of felony as rape.

[athena]

87. No, they are both class-B felonies.

The page specifies that both "rape in the first degree" and "criminal sexual act in the first degree" are class B felonies. As section 130.50 explains, forcible oral/anal sexual conduct is a "criminal sexual act in the first degree". Each count of class-B felony gets no less than one year in prison, and can get up to 25 years or a third of the total sentence. (The sentence may be higher if the felony included violence.)

[reorg]

90. yes, I checked again and noticed

still, my point stands, why the overblown rhetoric, does "criminal sexual conduct" not sound bad enough?

[joshcryer]

99. I'll call it a class-b felony from now on.

Just so people are aware it's not a joke.

[joshcryer]

81. I thought New York did not consider oral insertion rape?

edit: I saw the laws you linked in question, thanks for informing me. leaving title for prosperity

[athena]

72. No, there is no need to prove intent.

Rape is forcing someone to have sexual intercourse against his/her will. "I misunderstood," or "I thought she was a prostitute pretending to resist me," or "I thought she didn't really mean it when she said no," are not going to fly. Otherwise, no one could ever be charged with rape or sexual assault.

You seem to live in a fantasy universe where hotel workers dress in sexy little outfits designed to arouse the guests, where non-Muslims understand and forgive attempted rape, and where it is OK to push one's sex organ against someone's mouth if one simply apologizes afterwards. You have ignored numerous comments that pointed out major weaknesses in your scenario (or should I say your fantasy). Being so deeply in denial about how the legal system works is likely to cause trouble in your life. You might want to think about that.

I suggest that you start by looking at http://www.slc.edu/offices-services/security/assault/Penal_Law.html">this page, which explains that under New York State law:

• sexual intercourse "occurs upon any penetration, however slight";
  
• "oral sexual conduct" and "anal sexual conduct" require only "contact", "whether directly or through clothing" -- they do not necessarily require insertion;
  

Without consent, sexual intercourse or oral or anal sexual contact are considered "sexual misonduct" and "sexual abuse". If force or threat are applied, sexual intercourse without consent becomes "rape in the first degree", and oral/anal sexual conduct becomes "criminal sexual act in the first degree". Furthermore, touching, squeezing, or pinching someone's intimate body parts without his/her express or implied acquiescence is by itself a misdemeanor.

Note that there is nothing in this that requires proof that the perpetrator "intended" to commit rape or sexual assault.

[reorg]

75. well, I'll take anything from you with a grain of salt

as it were.

Your definitions are pretty much what I said earlier, except that intent must be proven for an act to be rape. If it is plausible and reasonable that you assumed consent, it's not rape, there is no way around it. The legal definitions are pretty clear on that, at least those I have read.

[athena]

78. You will take New York State Law with a grain of salt? Good luck with that.

New York State Law is what I linked to. If you bothered to read it, you would have realized that New York State Law does not require intent in cases of rape or sexual assault.

[reorg]

79. the law is more reasonable and specific

than what some people might think.

"it is an element of every offense defined in this article that the sexual act was committed without consent of the victim. (Eff.11/1/03,Ch.264.L.2003)

Lack of consent results from:"

... "in which the victim does not expressly or impliedly acquiesce in the actor’s conduct" ...

... "and a reasonable person in the actor’s situation would have understood such person’s words and acts as an expression of lack of consent to such act under all the circumstances".


Exactly what I said.

It is the task of the prosecution to prove a crime was committed. They must establish the incident occured, and that it was not reasonable for the accused to assume consent was given. They must prove intent on the part of the actor to break the will of the other person.

[athena]

85. You have left out crucial information.

The specification "in which the victim does not expressly or impliedly acquiesce in the actor’s conduct" applies only to forcible touching, not to forcible rape or anal/oral conduct. The specification "and a reasonable person in the actor’s situation would have understood such person’s words and acts as an expression of lack of consent to such act under all the circumstances" applies only to third-degree acts, not first-degree acts.

The full definition of consent is as follows:

Lack of consent results from:
(a) Forcible compulsion; or
(b) Incapacity to consent; or
(c) Where the offense charged is sexual abuse of forcible touching, any circumstances, in addition to forcible compulsion or incapacity to consent, in which the victim does not expressly or impliedly acquiesce in the actor’s conduct; or (Eff.11/1/03,Ch.264.L.2003)
(d) Where the offense charged is rape in the third degree as defined in subdivision three of section 130.25, or criminal sexual act in the third degree as defined in subdivision three of section 130.40, in addition to forcible compulsion, circumstances under which, at the time of the act of intercourse or deviate sexual intercourse, the victim clearly expressed that he or she did not consent to engage in such act, and a reasonable person in the actor’s situation would have understood such person’s words and acts as an expression of lack of consent to such act under all the circumstances. (Eff.11/1/03,Ch.264.L.2003)

(emphases mine)

In first-degree rape or oral/anal conduct, force is used, and the defendant cannot claim implied consent.

[reorg]

92. not really

the term "forcible COMPULSION" implies even stronger that the actor breaks the will of the other person. If the accused can reasonably claim he assumed consent, then it simply wasn't "compulsion".

"Forcible compulsion places a person in fear of immediate or future death, or physical injury to one's self or another person or in fear that the person or another person will immediately or in future be kidnapped."

http://definitions.uslegal.com/f/forcible-compulsion/

I cannot detect any indication of a death threat or threat of physical injury in this description of the incident:

"Deponent states that deponent is informed by an individual known to the District Attorney's office that defendant 1) shut the door to the above location and prevented informant from leaving the above location; 2) grabbed informant's breasts without consent; 3) attempted to pull down informant's pantyhose and forcibly grabbed informant's vaginal area; 4) forcibly made contact with his penis and informant's mouth twice; and 5) was able to accomplish the above acts by using actual physical force."

[Yo_Mama]

97. You are one sick individual n/t

[joshcryer]

98. He can claim it all he wants, he will not be able to prove it.

Just watch, he'll plead guilty in a few months when his lawyers tell him he's toast.

[athena]

102. You continue to post inaccurate and misleading statements.

Forcible compulsion is also defined in the site I referred to. I quote:

“Forcible compulsion” means to compel by either:
(a) use of physical force; or
(b) a threat, express or implied, which places a person in fear of immediate death or physical injury to himself, herself or another person, or in fear that he, she, or another person will immediately be kidnapped.

Contrary to your claim, the use of physical force is enough to constitute "forcible compulsion" in New York State.

By effectively arguing that rape is OK as long as the force used is not enough to cause fear of death or injury, you are saying a lot more about yourself than about this case.

[reorg]

103. you said it yourself, this is not about "rape"

so why are you using misleading terminology?

From your quote

"Forcible compulsion” means to compel ... "

Now look up the word COMPEL and see what it means.

[joshcryer]

104. What does it matter?

Really. Is not forcible assault as bad as rape?

[athena]

105. So you're now arguing that it is possible to use physical force but not "compel".

"Yes, I hit her, but that doesn't mean I compelled her to have sex with me. She agreed because she didn't manage to get away. Yes, those are bruises on her arms. But I didn't compel her."

I doubt very much that a jury would sympathize with such a defense.

While accusing everyone of assuming that rape or sexual assault took place, you are assuming that rape did not take place. Were you there? Are you part of the investigation team? How do you know that rape did not take place?

In any case, when I said "rape" in my previous message, I was not referring to the DSK case. I was referring to your sick arguments. What you posted above indicates that you, at least, believe that rape is fine as long as the physical force used is not enough to make the victim fear immediate death or injury.

You are truly a sick person. I am surprised that DU allows you to post such hateful things on this board.

[reorg]

106. the description doesn't say he "hit her"

"Physical force" as cited in these paragraphs is an abstract concept and can mean a lot of different things. The description says he "forcibly grabbed" and "forcibly made contact".

Such characterizations seem to indicate "rough" behavior as opposed to tenderness during or before sex. The scenario I lined out presumes he was in a hurry, perhaps, like Spitzer is described in "Client No. 9", he was the "want-to-get-his-money's-worth" type who wants business-like, emotionless sex. If it is assumed that he thought he was on a date with a hooker, "forcibly grabbing" and "forcible contact" may part of the act.

[athena]

109. Not worth it. (n/t)

[reorg]

107. another thing

It is not unusual for prosecutors to make allegations that would have to be dropped in a trial due to lack of or inconsistent evidence. As everyone knows, the vast majority of cases doesn't even go to trial and end in "plea deals". So writing up a long list of terrible sounding accusations provides leverage for the prosecutors when they haggle with the defense over what the accused is going to "admit". So, of course they would put "criminal sexual act" on the sheet if there is but the slightest indication of "physical force" such as holding an arm in a fast grip.

I am, BTW, not prejudging anything. Just going by what I perceive as the most fair coverage and trying to think through a scenario that seems more plausible to me than what you seem to take for granted.

[athena]

110. Not worth it. (n/t)

[kwassa]

119. You are doing your absolute best to minimize this crime.

What is plausible to you is not plausible to most who read about this crime. You are creating huge speculative scenarios without any support other than the prejudices of your subjective viewpoint.

[jberryhill]

108. Intent matters on the attempt charges

[Prometheus Bound]

86. Here's how various news organisations explain it.

The indictment accused Strauss-Kahn of seven counts of sexual assault on the hotel maid, who testified Wednesday he allegedly forced the woman to submit to oral and anal sex and attempted to rape her.

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2011/05/19/UPI-NewsTrack-TopNews/UPI-98281305838800/#ixzz1MzV134jB

he was arrested and charged with sodomizing a chamber maid in his Manhattan hotel room

He is accused of forcing the housekeeper to perform oral sex and submit to anal sex
http://abcnews.go.com/US/imf-chief-dominique-strauss-kahn-suicide-watch/story?id=13621783

A one-page indictment provided further lurid claims, accusing Strauss-Kahn of forcing the maid to take part in both oral and anal sex.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1387257/IMF-chief-Dominique-Strauss-Kahn-held-Rikers-Island-Graphic-account-sex-attack.html#ixzz1MzWGGefe

He allegedly forced the maid, who is a native of Guinea, to perform oral sex and submit to anal sex.
http://businesstoday.intoday.in/story/dominique-strauss-kahns-bail-plea-hearing-today-maid-testifies/1/15639.html

He allegedly forced the maid, who is a native of Guinea, to perform oral sex and submit to anal sex.
http://www.ddinews.gov.in/Homepage/Homepage+-+Other+Stories/IMF+chief+arrested.htm

He allegedly forced the maid, who is a native of Guinea, to perform oral sex and submit to anal sex.
http://www.timesnow.tv/Strauss-Kahn-released-from-jail/articleshow/4373866.cms

He allegedly forced the maid, who is a native of Guinea, to perform oral sex and submit to anal sex.
http://abclive.in/world/403-dominique-strauss-kahn-bail-.html

He allegedly forced the maid, who is a native of Guinea, to perform oral sex and submit to anal sex.
http://thestatesman.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=370207&catid=37

He allegedly forced the maid, who is a native of Guinea, to perform oral sex and submit to anal sex.
http://www.deccanherald.com/content/163039/strauss-kahn-released-jail.html

He is accused of sodomy, of allegedly forcing a Sofitel hotel maid to perform oral sex and submit to anal sex when he came out of the bathroom in his suite naked.
http://www.newsroomamerica.com/story/130448/strauss-kahn_resigns_as_head_of_imf.html

[reorg]

94. sounds like an echo chamber

of a one-sentence summary by some news agency.

For now I'll stick with the description of the Reuters story in The Guardian which seems to be more detailed:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/may/16/dominique-strauss-kahn-allegations-details

[Prometheus Bound]

89. Re socially acceted behaviour.

How on earth can you imply that what he allegedly did to her was considered socially acceptable in some circles in "Sin City."

I just want to be clear. Did you mis-speak or do you really believe what you said.

It's really hard to believe you meant it.

[reorg]

95. prostitution is not the same as rape

it's as simple as that. I am aware that not everyone makes that distinction.

[Thrill]

61. I see nothing wrong with this. He's paying for it

Now what he allegedly did the other day in NY is not cool.

[cali]

63. so if you pay for it, it entitles you to abuse the service provider?

nice to know.

[reorg]

68. that's not what the "madam" said

being angry and "rough" does not necessarily implicate abuse. Having just watched "Client No 9", it reminds me of the part where a similar topic comes up:

Narrator: He used the name George Fox and he booked an hour at a New York hotel, Upper East Side.

Madam: Um ... that first time it was very businesslike.

Interviewer: You said he wasn't that interested in the companionship.

Madam: (laughing) Right.

Interviewer: You're Iaughing.

Madam: It's funny.

Interviewer: 'Cause he wasn't at all interested in the companionship?

Madam: ... from what I heard.


Hooker: I remember thinking he was like ... I hate to put this crudely, um--a trying-to-get-his-money's-worth type client. I said to the agency, you know, I don't--I don't want to see that person again.


Interviewer: In what seems to be a kind of epidemic of, you know, politicaI figures and sex scandals, one question is, why ... you know, why hookers? I mean, why, particularly when that's, you know, illegal?

Spitzer: Again, I don't want to delve into--certainly don't want to speak for others, and even in my own case, don't really want to speak to that issue, except to say that you cave to temptations in a way that perhaps seems easier and ... and perhaps is, in some very twisted way, less damaging.

Interviewer: Less damaging how?

Spitzer: Than having affairs or relationships that take on a different tenor. That have--

Interviewer: I'm sorry, that have what?

Spitzer: Relationships that take on a different tenor.

Interviewer: You mean that have some sort of emotional--

Spitzer: Perhaps, yeah.

[cali]

71. right. so angry and rough that the girl didn't want to see him again.

yes, angry and rough is fucking abusive. not that you give a shit about women being abused. YOU have made that fucking crystal clear.

[reorg]

74. so you missed that quote?

The hooker who was patronized by Eliot Spitzer said pretty much the same about him and didn't want to see him again either. For some reason she must have changed her mind later.

Those who condemn prostitution and don't want it to be legal usually take for granted that such contacts are abusive. But that is another discussion. The same hooker who said she didn't want to see Spitzer again due to his "want-to-get-his-money's-worth" attitude also says in the same documentary it is ridiculous to claim these high-priced services are abusive for the women who engage in them.

So, it seems possible to defend prostitution and at the same time not to like every aspect of it all the time. Just as I might put up with an angry partner, even if I don't really like the attitude and even if she gets rough at times. Shades of grey matter, and they do exist.

[rooboy]

112. I think the point here isn't that he hired prostitutes...

but that he had no problem going outside his marriage for sex. It counters the argument that he's a clean-living family man.

[athena]

118. It's no secret that he goes outside his marriage for sex.

This seems to be no big deal in France. The French don't expect their male politicians to be family men. Even DSK's wife has said that she thinks it's a good thing for a politician to be a womanizer. It's all very French.

This story just corroborates existing suggestions that DSK was always aggressive -- "rough" enough to make prostitutes uncomfortable.

[KoKo]

111. Kick...because DSK is a "sometimes refomer" who "got in trouble" but

was REALLY COMPROMISED!

Kick his ASS because he thought he was ABOVE attacking a South African person who worked three years as a MAID at his "Exclusive Hotel" ...and WHO he THOUGHT HE COULD ATTACK...because HE IS ABOVE IT ALL!

He is DISGUSTING.

[24601]

113. No doubt the socialist perv just wanted to share the wealth with the

downtrodden & exploited. He forgot that socialist rule #1 - never share the wealth unless it's someone else's money...

[ClarkUSA]

114. Of course he did. I'll bet he had a madam in every capital. He's not the only one, either.

But he is the only misogynist who has a known reported pattern of sexual assault and attempted rape spanning decades.